Top 10 Reasons for a Space Program 447
Its_My_Hair writes "Space.com has an article on the top ten reasons for a space program. Most of the reasons seem to say that our space programs are here for our safety." The only necessary reason is "because it's there".
Re:Australia? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:FYI for Slashdotters (Score:4, Informative)
Re:why not just stop? (Score:5, Informative)
Ah, the traditional cry of the shortsighted. I couldn't let this one go by without commenting.
According to studies, every dollar spent in space has returned at least $10 into the wider economy. Odds are, you posted this comment using one of the spinoffs from the space program: a small computer. The development of smaller, faster computers (like the one you are reading this on!) was a direct result of the space program. You can't really fit a room sized computer into a space capsule, can you? It's much better to develop a smaller, lighter one that's just as powerful.
There are dozens and dozens of technologies that came out of the space program, technologies that would probably have taken decades more to develop without the spur of necessity.
Ah, but who needs things like improved solar panels on earth.
We have 216 years of coal lying around. We can just use that...
Who really needs better battery technology on Earth.
You're never very far from the stable, reliable electrical grid, are you?
Who needs improved communications technologies?
We have a perfectly adequate network of cables lying around right now...
Who needs improved manufacturing techniques?
Manufacturers improve those as a matter of course in their quest for higher profits.
Necessity drives invention. Without sufficient necessity, people tend to do that which they are familiar with. (Just look at the auto industry in the late sixties, or the current state of Hollywood.) They continue to use coal and oil, because there isn't a perceived need that will justify the expense of research. They continue to use old techniques, because they are good enough.
But give them the spur of having to develop technologies capable of sustaining life in space, and all of a sudden, the level of innovation, the level of creativity, spikes. And funny enough - when you figure out how to do something for the space program - then you start looking around to find out where else you can apply it.
Put a satellite in orbit to see if it can be done, and all of a sudden, we have a network of weather satellites.
Put a man in orbit and have to communicate with him, and all of a sudden, ground to space communications is important. And that gives us a network of communications satellites that are so ubiquitous that you probably don't even realize that you're using them.
These are technologies that have current, direct benefits to the people around us. For every obvious benefit, there are dozens that are less obvious, till you do the research.
Re:Chicken or Egg? (Score:5, Informative)
Another post talks about how we shouldn't put men in space as long as we have to do it on top of controlled explosives. But the controlled explosives brings home a key point: It takes a LOT of energy to get into orbit, and even more energy to leave orbit. You can get that energy with controlled explosives, or some other way, but we're then quibbling about matters of efficiency. Even at 100% efficiency, it still takes a LOT of energy to reach orbit or beyond.
Ready access to orbit and beyond means ready access to that much energy. As long as we're an immature species, ready access to that much energy means that it's practically certain that someone is going to use it for immature purposes. (war)
We don't currently have ready access to orbit and beyond, and we're already struggling to avoid wiping ourselves out. We probably need ready access to an order of magnitude more energy before we're really 'there', spacewise, and that might mean an order of magnitude more likely to wipe ourselves out, too.
Re:Impending meteor notification (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know the answer to the first question, but the answer to your second is a qualified no. Virtually any time anything interesting is discovered in the sky, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) will distribute a notice as part of their Minor Planet Electronic Circulars [harvard.edu]. Often, this will take place before the orbit of an asteroid is refined; data are then gathered by observatories around the world. That all of the involved institutions and personnel could sit on a major discovery like this is very difficult to imagine.
Re:Space... (Score:3, Informative)
You're trolling, but this should be said anyway (Score:2, Informative)
This is patently false. Going to Mars will teach us untold amounts of information about how planets are formed and the possibilities of extraterrestrial life formation.
Establishing a permanent base on the Moon will allow a tremendous amount of important astronomy to be done, not to mention the potential for mining there (and collecting the vast amount of Helium-III available on the Moon's surface).
Top 10 Reasons, summarized (Score:3, Informative)
#2 Satellites (communications)
#3 Satellites (communications)
#4 Satellites (solar power)
#5 Satellites (communications/weather)
#6 Satellites (communications/GPS)
#7 Satellites (military)
#8 Big rocks are scary and coming to get us!
#9 Space is cool, damn it!
#10 ??? - no, seriously, they said top ten reasons but they didn't give a numbered list and only highlighted nine things.
Re:Space Station (Score:2, Informative)
Now for how long the ISS crew could survive without re-supply is a difficult question. I would imagine they could easily survive for 6 months after the last Soyuz is docked because that is how long Soyuz can stay on-orbit. If you assume Progress is still re-supplying ISS then from a food and water point of view the crew could survive indefinitely. The lack of orbit re-boost, usually performed by Shuttle, is another thing altogether.
- charboy